G.R. No. 183896 January 30, 2013 This certification is being issued to Mr.

This certification is being issued to Mr. Syed Azhar Abbas for whatever legal purpose or intents it may serve.7

SYED AZHAR ABBAS, Petitioner, On cross-examination, Syed testified that Gloria had filed bigamy cases against him in 2001 and 2002, and that he
vs. had gone to the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite to get certification on whether or not there was a
GLORIA GOO ABBAS, Respondent. marriage license on advice of his counsel.8

DECISION Petitioner also presented Norberto Bagsic (Bagsic), an employee of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona,
Cavite. Bagsic appeared under a letter of authority from the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite, and
brought documents pertaining to Marriage License No. 9969967, which was issued to Arlindo Getalado and Myra
VELASCO, JR., J.:
Mabilangan on January 20, 1993.9

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, questioning the
Bagsic testified that their office issues serial numbers for marriage licenses and that the numbers are issued
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated March 11, 2008 in CA-G.R. CV No. 86760, which reversed the Decision2
chronologically.10 He testified that the certification dated July 11, 2003, was issued and signed by Leodivina
in Civil Case No. 03-0382-CFM dated October 5, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 109, Pasay City,
Encarnacion, Registrar of the Municipality of Carmona, Cavite, certifying that Marriage License No. 9969967 was
and the CA Resolution dated July 24, 2008, denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the CA Decision.
issued for Arlindo Getalado and Myra Mabilangan on January 19, 1993, and that their office had not issued any
other license of the same serial number, namely 9969967, to any other person.11
The present case stems from a petition filed by petitioner Syed Azhar Abbas (Syed) for the declaration of nullity
of his marriage to Gloria Goo-Abbas (Gloria) with the RTC of Pasay City, docketed as Civil Case No. 03-0382-CFM,
For her part, Gloria testified on her own behalf, and presented Reverend Mario Dauz, Atty. Lorenzo Sanchez,
and raffled to RTC Branch 109. Syed alleged the absence of a marriage license, as provided for in Article 4, Chapter
Felicitas Goo and May Ann Ceriola.
I, Title 1 of Executive Order No. 269, otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines, as a ground for the
annulment of his marriage to Gloria.
Reverend Mario Dauz (Rev. Dauz) testified that he was a minister of the Gospel and a barangay captain, and that
he is authorized to solemnize marriages within the Philippines. 12 He testified that he solemnized the marriage of
In the Marriage Contract3 of Gloria and Syed, it is stated that Marriage License No. 9969967, issued at Carmona,
Syed Azhar Abbas and Gloria Goo at the residence of the bride on January 9, 1993. 13 He stated that the witnesses
Cavite on January 8, 1993, was presented to the solemnizing officer. It is this information that is crucial to the
were Atty. Lorenzo Sanchez (Atty. Sanchez) and Mary Ann Ceriola. 14 He testified that he had been solemnizing
resolution of this case.
marriages since 1982, and that he is familiar with the requirements.15 Rev. Dauz further testified that Atty. Sanchez
gave him the marriage license the day before the actual wedding, and that the marriage contract was prepared by
At the trial court, Syed, a Pakistani citizen, testified that he met Gloria, a Filipino citizen, in Taiwan in 1991, and his secretary.16 After the solemnization of the marriage, it was registered with the Local Civil Registrar of Manila,
they were married on August 9, 1992 at the Taipei Mosque in Taiwan.4 He arrived in the Philippines in December and Rev. Dauz submitted the marriage contract and copy of the marriage license with that office. 17
of 1992. On January 9, 1993, at around 5 o’clock in the afternoon, he was at his mother-in-law’s residence, located
at 2676 F. Muñoz St., Malate, Manila, when his mother-in-law arrived with two men. He testified that he was told
Atty. Sanchez testified that he was asked to be the sponsor of the wedding of Syed Abbas and Gloria Goo by the
that he was going to undergo some ceremony, one of the requirements for his stay in the Philippines, but was not
mother of the bride, Felicitas Goo.18 He testified that he requested a certain Qualin to secure the marriage license
told of the nature of said ceremony. During the ceremony he and Gloria signed a document. He claimed that he did
for the couple, and that this Qualin secured the license and gave the same to him on January 8, 1993. 19 He further
not know that the ceremony was a marriage until Gloria told him later. He further testified that he did not go to
testified that he did not know where the marriage license was obtained. 20 He attended the wedding ceremony on
Carmona, Cavite to apply for a marriage license, and that he had never resided in that area. In July of 2003, he went
January 9, 1993, signed the marriage contract as sponsor, and witnessed the signing of the marriage contract by
to the Office of the Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite, to check on their marriage license, and was asked to show a
the couple, the solemnizing officer and the other witness, Mary Ann Ceriola. 21
copy of their marriage contract wherein the marriage license number could be found.5 The Municipal Civil
Registrar, Leodivinia C. Encarnacion, issued a certification on July 11, 2003 to the effect that the marriage license
number appearing in the marriage contract he submitted, Marriage License No. 9969967, was the number of Felicitas Goo testified that Gloria Goo is her daughter and Syed Azhar Abbas is her son-in-law, and that she was
another marriage license issued to a certain Arlindo Getalado and Myra Mabilangan. 6 Said certification reads as present at the wedding ceremony held on January 9, 1993 at her house.22 She testified that she sought the help of
follows: Atty. Sanchez at the Manila City Hall in securing the marriage license, and that a week before the marriage was to
take place, a male person went to their house with the application for marriage license. 23 Three days later, the
same person went back to their house, showed her the marriage license before returning it to Atty. Sanchez who
11 July 2003
then gave it to Rev. Dauz, the solemnizing officer.24 She further testified that she did not read all of the contents of
the marriage license, and that she was told that the marriage license was obtained from Carmona. 25 She also
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: testified that a bigamy case had been filed by Gloria against Syed at the Regional Trial Court of Manila, evidenced
by an information for Bigamy dated January 10, 2003, pending before Branch 47 of the Regional Trial Court of
Manila.26
This is to certify as per Registry Records of Marriage License filed in this office, Marriage License No. 9969967 was
issued in favor of MR. ARLINDO GETALADO and MISS MYRA MABILANGAN on January 19, 1993.
As to Mary Ann Ceriola’s testimony, the counsels for both parties stipulated that: (a) she is one of the sponsors at
the wedding of Gloria Goo and Syed Abbas on January 9, 1993; (b) she was seen in the wedding photos and she
No Marriage License appear [sic] to have been issued to MR. SYED AZHAR ABBAS and MISS GLORIA F. GOO on
January 8, 1993.

1
could identify all the persons depicted in said photos; and (c) her testimony corroborates that of Felicitas Goo and SO ORDERED.34
Atty. Sanchez.
Gloria filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated November 7, 2005, but the RTC denied the same, prompting her
The respondent, Gloria, testified that Syed is her husband, and presented the marriage contract bearing their to appeal the questioned decision to the Court of Appeals.
signatures as proof.27 She and her mother sought the help of Atty. Sanchez in securing a marriage license, and
asked him to be one of the sponsors. A certain Qualin went to their house and said that he will get the marriage
The Ruling of the CA
license for them, and after several days returned with an application for marriage license for them to sign, which
she and Syed did. After Qualin returned with the marriage license, they gave the license to Atty. Sanchez who gave
it to Rev. Dauz, the solemnizing officer. Gloria testified that she and Syed were married on January 9, 1993 at their In her appeal to the CA, Gloria submitted the following assignment of errors:
residence.28
I
Gloria further testified that she has a daughter with Syed, born on June 15, 1993. 29
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND
Gloria also testified that she filed a bigamy case against Syed, who had married a certain Maria Corazon RESPONDENT AS NULL AND VOID DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF A MARRIAGE LICENSE DESPITE
Buenaventura during the existence of the previous marriage, and that the case was docketed as Criminal Case No. EVIDENCE CLEARLY SHOWING THAT THERE WAS ONE.
02A-03408, with the RTC of Manila.30
II
Gloria stated that she and Syed had already been married on August 9, 1992 in Taiwan, but that she did not know
if said marriage had been celebrated under Muslim rites, because the one who celebrated their marriage was
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING, AS A REQUISITE OF A VALID MARRIAGE, THE
Chinese, and those around them at the time were Chinese.31
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT A MARRIAGE CEREMONY TOOK PLACE WITH THE
APPEARANCE OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES BEFORE THE SOLEMNIZING OFFICER AND THEIR
The Ruling of the RTC PERSONAL DECLARATION THAT THEY TOOK EACH OTHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE IN THE
PRESENCE OF NOT LESS THAN TWO WITNESSES OF LEGAL AGE.
In its October 5, 2005 Decision, the Pasay City RTC held that no valid marriage license was issued by the Municipal
Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite in favor of Gloria and Syed, as Marriage License No. 9969967 had been issued III
to Arlindo Getalado and Myra Mabilangan, and the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite had certified that
no marriage license had been issued for Gloria and Syed.32 It also took into account the fact that neither party was
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT RULING ON THE ISSUE OF ESTOPPEL BY LACHES ON THE PART
a resident of Carmona, Cavite, the place where Marriage License No. 9969967 was issued, in violation of Article 9
OF THE PETITIONER, AN ISSUE TIMELY RAISED IN THE COURT BELOW. 35
of the Family Code.33 As the marriage was not one of those exempt from the license requirement, and that the lack
of a valid marriage license is an absence of a formal requisite, the marriage of Gloria and Syed on January 9, 1993
was void ab initio. The CA gave credence to Gloria’s arguments, and granted her appeal. It held that the certification of the Municipal
Civil Registrar failed to categorically state that a diligent search for the marriage license of Gloria and Syed was
conducted, and thus held that said certification could not be accorded probative value. 36 The CA ruled that there
The dispositive portion of the Decision reads as follows:
was sufficient testimonial and documentary evidence that Gloria and Syed had been validly married and that there
was compliance with all the requisites laid down by law.37
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioner, and against the respondent declaring as
follows:
It gave weight to the fact that Syed had admitted to having signed the marriage contract. The CA also considered
that the parties had comported themselves as husband and wife, and that Syed only instituted his petition after
1. The marriage on January 9, 1993 between petitioner Syed Azhar Abbas and respondent Gloria Goo- Gloria had filed a case against him for bigamy.38
Abbas is hereby annulled;
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads as follows:
2. Terminating the community of property relations between the petitioner and the respondent even if
no property was acquired during their cohabitation by reason of the nullity of the marriage of the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated 05 October 2005 and Order dated
parties.
27 January 2006 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 109, in Civil Case No. 03-0382-CFM are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is DISMISSED. The marriage
3. The Local Civil Registrar of Manila and the Civil Registrar General, National Statistics Office, are between Shed [sic] Azhar Abbas and Gloria Goo Abbas contracted on 09 January 1993 remains valid and
hereby ordered to cancel from their respective civil registries the marriage contracted by petitioner subsisting. No costs.
Syed Azhar Abbas and respondent Gloria Goo-Abbas on January 9, 1993 in Manila.
SO ORDERED.39

2
Syed then filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated April 1, 2008 40 but the same was denied by the CA in a
Resolution dated July 24, 2008.41
Hence, this petition.
Grounds in Support of Petition
I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN CITING REPUBLIC
VS. COURT OF APPEALS AS THE SAME IS DIAMETRICALLY INCONSISTENT AND CONTRARY TO THE
COURT’S OWN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THIS CASE.
II
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN REVERSING AND SETTING ASIDE,
WITHOUT ANY FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS, THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
GRANTING THE PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE. 42
The Ruling of this Court
The petition is meritorious.
As the marriage of Gloria and Syed was solemnized on January 9, 1993, Executive Order No. 209, or the Family
Code of the Philippines, is the applicable law. The pertinent provisions that would apply to this particular case are
Articles 3, 4 and 35(3), which read as follows:
Art. 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:
(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;
(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the
solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the
presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.
Art. 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as
stated in Article 35(2).
A defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the marriage voidable as provided in Article 45.
An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the party or parties
responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable.
Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:
3
xxxx
(3) Those solemnized without a license, except those covered by the preceding Chapter.
There is no issue with the essential requisites under Art. 2 of the Family Code, nor with the formal requisites of
the authority of the solemnizing officer and the conduct of the marriage ceremony. Nor is the marriage one that is
exempt from the requirement of a valid marriage license under Chapter 2, Title I of the Family Code. The resolution
of this case, thus, hinges on whether or not a valid marriage license had been issued for the couple. The RTC held
that no valid marriage license had been issued. The CA held that there was a valid marriage license.
We find the RTC to be correct in this instance.
Respondent Gloria failed to present the actual marriage license, or a copy thereof, and relied on the marriage
contract as well as the testimonies of her witnesses to prove the existence of said license. To prove that no such
license was issued, Syed turned to the office of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite which had allegedly
issued said license. It was there that he requested certification that no such license was issued. In the case of
Republic v. Court of Appeals43 such certification was allowed, as permitted by Sec. 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court, which reads:
SEC. 28. Proof of lack of record. – A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record
or by his deputy that after diligent search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of
his office, accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his office
contain no such record or entry.
In the case of Republic, in allowing the certification of the Civil Registrar of Pasig to prove the non-issuance of a
marriage license, the Court held:
The above Rule authorized the custodian of the documents to certify that despite diligent search, a particular
document does not exist in his office or that a particular entry of a specified tenor was not to be found in a register.
As custodians of public documents, civil registrars are public officers charged with the duty, inter alia, of
maintaining a register book where they are required to enter all applications for marriage licenses, including the
names of the applicants, the date the marriage license was issued and such other relevant data. 44
The Court held in that case that the certification issued by the civil registrar enjoyed probative value, as his duty
was to maintain records of data relative to the issuance of a marriage license.
The Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite, where the marriage license of Gloria and Syed was allegedly
issued, issued a certification to the effect that no such marriage license for Gloria and Syed was issued, and that
the serial number of the marriage license pertained to another couple, Arlindo Getalado and Myra Mabilangan. A
certified machine copy of Marriage License No. 9969967 was presented, which was issued in Carmona, Cavite, and
indeed, the names of Gloria and Syed do not appear in the document.
In reversing the RTC, the CA focused on the wording of the certification, stating that it did not comply with Section
28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
The CA deduced that from the absence of the words "despite diligent search" in the certification, and since the
certification used stated that no marriage license appears to have been issued, no diligent search had been
conducted and thus the certification could not be given probative value.
To justify that deduction, the CA cited the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals. 45 It is worth noting that in that
particular case, the Court, in sustaining the finding of the lower court that a marriage license was lacking, relied
on the Certification issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig, which merely stated that the alleged marriage license
could not be located as the same did not appear in their records. Nowhere in the Certification was it categorically
stated that the officer involved conducted a diligent search, nor is a categorical declaration absolutely necessary
for Sec. 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court to apply.
contract was his. Several pictures were presented showing appellant and appellee, before the solemnizing officer,
the witnesses and other members of appellant’s family, taken during the marriage ceremony, as well as in the
restaurant where the lunch was held after the marriage ceremony. Most telling of all is Exhibit "5-C" which shows
appellee signing the Marriage Contract.
xxxx

Under Sec. 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, it is a disputable presumption that an official duty has been
The parties have comported themselves as husband and wife and has [sic] one offspring, Aliea Fatima Goo Abbas,
regularly performed, absent contradiction or other evidence to the contrary. We held, "The presumption of
who was born on 15 June 1993. It took appellee more than ten (10) years before he filed on 01 August 2003 his
regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty." 46
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 4 of the Family Code. We take serious note that said
No such affirmative evidence was shown that the Municipal Civil Registrar was lax in performing her duty of
Petition appears to have been instituted by him only after an Information for Bigamy (Exhibit "1") dated 10
checking the records of their office, thus the presumption must stand. In fact, proof does exist of a diligent search
January 2003 was filed against him for contracting a second or subsequent marriage with one Ma. Corazon
having been conducted, as Marriage License No. 996967 was indeed located and submitted to the court. The fact
(Maryam) T. Buenaventura. We are not ready to reward (appellee) by declaring the nullity of his marriage and
that the names in said license do not correspond to those of Gloria and Syed does not overturn the presumption
give him his freedom and in the process allow him to profit from his own deceit and perfidy. 50
that the registrar conducted a diligent search of the records of her office.

All the evidence cited by the CA to show that a wedding ceremony was conducted and a marriage contract was
It is telling that Gloria failed to present their marriage license or a copy thereof to the court. She failed to explain
signed does not operate to cure the absence of a valid marriage license. Article 4 of the Family Code is clear when
why the marriage license was secured in Carmona, Cavite, a location where, admittedly, neither party resided. She
it says, "The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as
took no pains to apply for the license, so she is not the best witness to testify to the validity and existence of said
stated in Article 35(2)." Article 35(3) of the Family Code also provides that a marriage solemnized without a
license. Neither could the other witnesses she presented prove the existence of the marriage license, as none of
license is void from the beginning, except those exempt from the license requirement under Articles 27 to 34,
them applied for the license in Carmona, Cavite. Her mother, Felicitas Goo, could not even testify as to the contents
Chapter 2, Title I of the same Code.51 Again, this marriage cannot be characterized as among the exemptions, and
of the license, having admitted to not reading all of its contents. Atty. Sanchez, one of the sponsors, whom Gloria
thus, having been solemnized without a marriage license, is void ab initio.1âwphi1
and Felicitas Goo approached for assistance in securing the license, admitted not knowing where the license came
from. The task of applying for the license was delegated to a certain Qualin, who could have testified as to how the
license was secured and thus impeached the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar as well as the testimony As to the motive of Syed in seeking to annul his marriage to Gloria, it may well be that his motives are less than
of her representative. As Gloria failed to present this Qualin, the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar still pure, that he seeks to evade a bigamy suit. Be that as it may, the same does not make up for the failure of the
enjoys probative value. respondent to prove that they had a valid marriage license, given the weight of evidence presented by petitioner.
The lack of a valid marriage license cannot be attributed to him, as it was Gloria who took steps to procure the
same. The law must be applied. As the marriage license, a formal requisite, is clearly absent, the marriage of Gloria
It is also noted that the solemnizing officer testified that the marriage contract and a copy of the marriage license
and Syed is void ab initio.
were submitted to the Local Civil Registrar of Manila. Thus, a copy of the marriage license could have simply been
secured from that office and submitted to the court. However, Gloria inexplicably failed to do so, further weakening
her claim that there was a valid marriage license issued for her and Syed. WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated March 11,
2008 and Resolution dated July 24, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 86760 are hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 109, Pasay City dated October 5, 2005 in Civil
In the case of Cariño v. Cariño,47 following the case of Republic,48 it was held that the certification of the Local Civil
Case No. 03-0382-CFM annulling the marriage of petitioner with respondent on January 9, 1993 is hereby
Registrar that their office had no record of a marriage license was adequate to prove the non-issuance of said
REINSTATED.
license. The case of Cariño further held that the presumed validity of the marriage of the parties had been
overcome, and that it became the burden of the party alleging a valid marriage to prove that the marriage was
valid, and that the required marriage license had been secured. 49 Gloria has failed to discharge that burden, and No costs.
the only conclusion that can be reached is that no valid marriage license was issued. It cannot be said that there
was a simple irregularity in the marriage license that would not affect the validity of the marriage, as no license
SO ORDERED.
was presented by the respondent. No marriage license was proven to have been issued to Gloria and Syed, based
on the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite and Gloria’s failure to produce a copy of the
alleged marriage license.

To bolster its ruling, the CA cited other evidence to support its conclusion that Gloria and Syed were validly
married. To quote the CA:

Moreover, the record is replete with evidence, testimonial and documentary, that appellant and appellee have
been validly married and there was compliance with all the requisites laid down by law. Both parties are legally
capacitated to marry. A certificate of legal capacity was even issued by the Embassy of Pakistan in favor of appellee.
The parties herein gave their consent freely. Appellee admitted that the signature above his name in the marriage